Tucker showing video of the Jan 6th , that has never been shown

[bob99]

I have a fear and it comes from hearing things like elections need to be federally controlled at least when it is a President being voted elected. Then we have defund the police ( really reduce funding to the police) and this is being promoted by our left leaning democrat party people. Right after the reductions happen and police forces in these cities are having trouble with increased crime that is due to a shortage of police officers. I hear our Democrat President pushing for fed. funds to help with the shortages of man power. Control of elections with Fed money, control of the police departments because of Fed funding. Any time Fed money is used the Fed govt gets to have a say or control of how things are run. Look at education thanks to Fed say so schools are being told what they can even feed kids for lunch. Fed Govt control is the goal of the Democrat party. Need another example look at how welfare in run. Fed money means Fed control and rules. The power states are suppose to have and be able to control is slowly being taken away and we the people just let it happen. It is only one little thing then another and another.

One election once every 4 years AL. All 50 states and the territories would be united having an election that is equal for everyone and handled the same way by every state and territory. Not taking any power away from the states, uniting the states once every four years in election that affects everyone.

 

[ottootto]

The National Popular Vote bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each.

With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets.

The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787).

Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).

The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.

“there is no constitutional problem with a state using other states’ voting tallies, even if the states have different voting rules and ballot forms. As long as each state treats people within its own borders equally, there is no equal-protection issue” – Vikram D. Amar

There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President. That was certainly the mainstream view when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment in 1969 for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. That amendment retained state control over elections.

The 1969 amendment was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale.

The American Bar Association also endorsed the proposed 1969 amendment.

The proposed 1969 constitutional amendment provided that the popular-vote count from each state would be added up to obtain the nationwide total for each candidate. The National Popular Vote compact does the same.

Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are co-mingled and simply added together.

Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.

For example, the 2000 Certificate of Ascertainment (required by federal law) from the state of Florida reported 2,912,790 popular votes for George W. Bush and 2,912,253 popular vote for Al Gore, and also reported 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and 0 electoral votes for Al Gore. That 25–0 division of the electoral votes from Florida determined the outcome of the national election just as a particular division of the popular vote from a particular state might decisively affect the national outcome in some future election under the National Popular Vote compact.

The 1969 constitutional amendment, endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale, and The American Bar Association and, more importantly, the current system also accepts the differences among states.

 

[19AL63]

One election once every 4 years AL. All 50 states and the territories would be united having an election that is equal for everyone and handled the same way by every state and territory. Not taking any power away from the states, uniting the states once every four years in election that affects everyone.

Thank you for making my point see one little thing and it is just every four years. What we will be next. I wish someone would do some research and find out how many little things have been taken over by the Feds that were the states to begin with. If you would go back to the beginning of this once great nation the list would be long, long, long.

 

[ottootto]

"The Feds" have NOT taken over presidential elections.
Each state controls their elections.

 

[bob99]

Thank you for making my point see one little thing and it is just every four years. What we will be next. I wish someone would do some research and find out how many little things have been taken over by the Feds that were the states to begin with. If you would go back to the beginning of this once great nation the list would be long, long, long.

Do you believe the last election was rigged? Can we trust the states to handle the national election? If we believe the states are perfectly capable than no one should be complaining about any election being rigged. Not your state? Don't worry about. It is the system you want and it is the system you got.

 

[bob99]

"The Feds" have NOT taken over presidential elections.
Each state controls their elections.

No one have said they have otto. This discussion is all hypothetical. I have talked about being in favor of changing the election to a popular vote election that would be ran nationwide under the same rules and regulations. My dear friends here on Yappi have been less than enthusiastic about my personal opinion.

 

[y2h]

Of COURSE all states are NOT currently in play.
A Republican could REALLY win CA, NY, IL, VT, DC, HI, RI, and DE ??
And a Democrat could REALLY win AK, WY, WV, UT, MO, ND, OK, ID, SD, KY, AL, TN, LA, MS, NE?
At least 41 states and 80% of U.S. population will be politically irrelevant in 2024.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Only 9 states (and 2 congressional districts) with 109 electoral votes and less than 21% of the US population and less than 23% of total 2020 presidential votes, could be competitive and wooed in 2024.

Iowa, Florida, and Ohio will join the politically irrelevant states. No more wildly outsized attention, power, and influence.

The Electoral College would have 211 Democratic and 218 Republican predictable votes.

In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with less than 20% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235

Over and Over again I have shown the math and political reality that to win the most votes from ALL 50 STATES and DC to win the Electoral College a successful candidate would NOT only need to appeal to the most populous locations. They would LOSE, spectacularly if they only appealed to the most populous locations.

41 States (with 80% of U.S. Population) will be Ignored in the 2024 Presidential Election

The 2024 presidential campaign will be concentrated in nine states (and one congressional district in Maine and Nebraska)—with a total of 109 electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. ● The Republican nominee can count on 218 electoral votes from 24 states. ● The...

www.nationalpopularvote.com

No they wouldn't. In a contest of totality of votes you appeal to the large population centers to run up the score. In an electoral college contest you must have broader appeal to reach 270.

 

[ottootto]

No they wouldn't. In a contest of totality of votes you appeal to the large population centers to run up the score. In an electoral college contest you must have broader appeal to reach 270.

Look at how presidential candidates actually campaign today inside “battleground” states. Inside a battleground state, every vote is equal today and the winner (of all of the state’s electoral votes) is the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Every battleground state has big cities and rural areas. Thus, if there was any tendency toward de-emphasizing rural areas or over-emphasizing cities, it would be evident today inside the battleground states.

Ohio alone received almost 30% (73 of 253) of the entire nation’s campaign events in 2012.

● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 54% of the state’s population. They are Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. Had 52% of Ohio’s campaign events.

● The 7 medium-sized MSAs have 24% of the state’s population. They are Akron, Canton, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Springfield, and Youngstown. Had 23% of Ohio’s campaign events.

● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population. Had 25% of Ohio’s campaign events.

The 4 “battleground” states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa accounted for over two-thirds of all campaign events in 2012

In all 4 battleground states, presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—hewed very closely to population in allocating campaign events. Candidates campaigned everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas. There is no evidence that they ignored rural areas or favored big cities in an election in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes.

Not only is there no evidence that presidential candidates ignored rural areas or concentrated on big cities, it would have been preposterous for them to do so. There is nothing special about a city vote compared to a rural vote in an election in which every vote is equal. When every vote is equal, every vote is equally important toward winning.

Your assumptions are not based on facts.

Smart candidates adapt their campaign strategies to the rules of the election in which they’re running.

When presidents with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.

A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Pennsylvania and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Pennsylvania and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to campaign in any Red or Blue state, or for a Republican to campaign in any Red or Blue state.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

 

[y2h]

Sure equal oversight. Equal scrutiny wherever the votes are counted. Apparently you don't trust some of the states now. Who do they answer to?

So you think everyone will trust what the Fed government says. "Shut up peasant, don't dare question us".

I don't trust some of the states because they clearly FUBARed the election. Ballots flying everywhere, little verification of eligibility. It was a disgrace.

 

[y2h]

Look at how presidential candidates actually campaign today inside “battleground” states. Inside a battleground state, every vote is equal today and the winner (of all of the state’s electoral votes) is the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Every battleground state has big cities and rural areas. Thus, if there was any tendency toward de-emphasizing rural areas or over-emphasizing cities, it would be evident today inside the battleground states.

Ohio alone received almost 30% (73 of 253) of the entire nation’s campaign events in 2012.

● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 54% of the state’s population. They are Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. Had 52% of Ohio’s campaign events.

● The 7 medium-sized MSAs have 24% of the state’s population. They are Akron, Canton, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Springfield, and Youngstown. Had 23% of Ohio’s campaign events.

● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population. Had 25% of Ohio’s campaign events.

The 4 “battleground” states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa accounted for over two-thirds of all campaign events in 2012

In all 4 battleground states, presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—hewed very closely to population in allocating campaign events. Candidates campaigned everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas. There is no evidence that they ignored rural areas or favored big cities in an election in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes.

Not only is there no evidence that presidential candidates ignored rural areas or concentrated on big cities, it would have been preposterous for them to do so. There is nothing special about a city vote compared to a rural vote in an election in which every vote is equal. When every vote is equal, every vote is equally important toward winning.

Your assumptions are not based on facts.

Smart candidates adapt their campaign strategies to the rules of the election in which they’re running.

When presidents with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.

A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Pennsylvania and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Pennsylvania and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to campaign in any Red or Blue state, or for a Republican to campaign in any Red or Blue state.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

Of course it makes sense for them to do so. You need as many states as possible to get to 270. It reflects the actual will of the people, not just the large population centers of the country.

Under your proposal the coasts will control the election, screw middle America.

 

[ottootto]

Of course it makes sense for them to do so. You need as many states as possible to get to 270. It reflects the actual will of the people, not just the large population centers of the country.

Under your proposal the coasts will control the election, screw middle America.

Winning states would NOT be the goal.
Winning individual votes would.
Where voters are would not matter!
That's the point!

With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:

* Texas (62% R), 1,691,267

* New York (59% D), 1,192,436

* Georgia (58% R), 544,634

* North Carolina (56% R), 426,778

* California (55% D), 1,023,560

* Illinois (55% D), 513,342

* New Jersey (53% D), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running.
Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now.
Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 4 of them.
Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.

Math and political reality.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.

All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.

Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,

CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most popular votes of ALL 50 STATES and DC.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

 

[bob99]

So you think everyone will trust what the Fed government says. "Shut up peasant, don't dare question us".

I don't trust some of the states because they clearly FUBARed the election. Ballots flying everywhere, little verification of eligibility. It was a disgrace.

If you have a coalition over seeing the election they can watch each other. You are saying you don't think the state EC method is working.
This is just an alternative voting process. You can't say it wouldn't work if it never been tried.

 

[BlueDevil2022]

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:

“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager in 2016, said,

“When I took over as campaign manager in 2016, we did zero—let me repeat the number—zero national polls.”

When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

---

To a large degree, all voters in all States have essentially the same concerns regarding the duties and powers of a POTUS:

Broad issues such as War or Peace, International relations, taxation.

No single candidate can possibly hope to satisfy the myriad of various concerns of everyone in every State or expect to DO anything about the myriad local issues.

The Office of POTUS isn't the King of the World or Emperor or Dictator of the United States anyway. Many issues most people care about? the POTUS and FEDGOV have no influence on in the first place.

 

[y2h]

If you have a coalition over seeing the election they can watch each other. You are saying you don't think the state EC method is working.
This is just an alternative voting process. You can't say it wouldn't work if it never been tried.

We tally the popular vote every time. The Dems will always win by stacking the votes in their high density enclaves. If you like one party rule this is for you. If you want balance then the current system is the one to support.

 

[ottootto]

To a large degree, all voters in all States have essentially the same concerns regarding the duties and powers of a POTUS:

Broad issues such as War or Peace, International relations, taxation.

No single candidate can possibly hope to satisfy the myriad of various concerns of everyone in every State or expect to DO anything about the myriad local issues.

The Office of POTUS isn't the King of the World or Emperor or Dictator of the United States anyway. Many issues most people care about? the POTUS and FEDGOV have no influence on in the first place.

Remember, Ohio will NOT be a battleground state in 2024. It is no longer competitive in presidential elections.

Because of district and state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Some policies are evaluated based on their impact on swing states, not on their overall impact on the nation.

Policies important to the citizens of the 38+ non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The National Popular Vote system would address the core threat of parochialism in presidential elections.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

"Trump is completely indifferent to the well-being of the country except insofar as it benefits him politically, and proposed at one point to cut off disaster aid to fire-ravaged California because its residents would never support him anyway. (This is the sort of abuse invited by the Electoral College; a national popular vote would incentivize a president to worry about the millions of potential lost [Republican] votes in the largest state.) " – New York Magazine, 8/17/20

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

In May 2019, after Hurricane Michael in October 2018, Trump told battleground state Florida voters “You’re getting your money one way or another, and we’re not going to let anybody hold it up.”"I am doing the most allowed by law to support the people of Florida," “We’ve already given you billions of dollars, and there’s a lot more coming.” “The money is coming immediately. No games, no gimmicks. We’re just doing it.”

While Trump claimed that Puerto Rico doesn’t need any more disaster relief funds

Puerto Ricans, American citizens without any electoral votes, had trouble receiving aid money and struggled to recover from Hurricane Maria in 2017.

Impact Of Pentagon Weapons Spending On Jobs (And Votes) In Four Battleground States​

- Forbes, 7/30/20

Trump is “on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own political benefit. . . It’s a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key [Electoral College] states.” - William Hartung, a scholar at the Center for International Policy

The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, and the Trump steel and aluminum tariffs now, from the free-trade party.

Electoral math drives protectionist trade policies to favor parochial interests in battleground states.

Trump decided to exit the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, understanding that his Electoral College majority came via a few thousand votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

The root cause of Trump’s trade war was the state-based winner take all system.

“Trump's Tariff Is a Gift to Swing States” – Bloomberg – 3/20/18

And conversely, Trump’s trade war, with China targeting red states, could hurt the very voters who put him in the White House.

“The Chinese are proving pretty adept at targeting so-called “red states” with their retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports, in response to more aggressive tariffs from President Trump on Chinese imports.” – Forbes – 9/25/19

Trump directed the Department of Agriculture to provide U.S. lobster fishermen with potentially massive financial assistance. (Between 2018 and 2019, the Trump administration rolled out $25 billion in similar offsets directed at Midwestern farmers hurt by U.S. trade policies., to make up for lost income from Chinese tariffs.) and considering placing retaliatory tariffs on the Chinese seafood industry. The issue was raised with Trump when he held a roundtable with industry representatives during a trip to Maine, where he carried a single Electoral College vote in 2016 and hopes to repeat that lone electoral win in 2020. He also signed an executive order in Maine opening a national monument off the Gulf of Maine to commercial fishing, though his authority to do so is both questionable and under a legal challenge. In addition, the monument is out of range for most Maine fishermen.- Bangor Daily News, 6/24/20
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-...-or-a-few-meager-votes--RChrStIMve/index.html

As trade and other tensions increased with foreign countries, U.S. foes and trading partners micro-targeted their efforts against us. They targeted major U.S. exports like soybeans and pork and investments, and many of those are in areas like the Farm Belt. The agriculture community was concerned about it. There were other possible easily identified targets as well.

European Union officials quickly crafted possible retaliatory tariffs against American goods, using strategies using their knowledge of the effects of state winner take all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Look at the ailing agricultural industry and companies like Harley Davidson as casualties of the “winner-take-all” system. As the result of President Trump’s trade war, targeted countries retaliated by attacking industries in key “battleground” states, like Wisconsin, Michigan, and others that they knew could harm his reelection.

The system generates policy in a way that isn’t even always good for the battleground states

The current state-based winner-take-all system allows foreign governments to weaponize protectionism against the battleground states and encourages presidents to start trade wars in order to win parochial voters in a handful of battleground states.

Facing fierce opposition by Democratic and Republican governors in all coastal states, after the Trump administration announced the opening of offshore oil drilling, only battleground state Florida has been exempted.

Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years has been skewed to battleground states

 

[ottootto]

We tally the popular vote every time. The Dems will always win by stacking the votes in their high density enclaves. If you like one party rule this is for you. If you want balance then the current system is the one to support.

If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points).​

Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interview

“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”
Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”

“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”

“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

“I would rather have a popular vote. “

Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote.

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

BALANCE
Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

65,983,448 people live in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).

66,300,254 in rural America (20%)

Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population.

In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.

19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.

Balance??
Because of statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

2 recent presidents entered office without winning the most national popular votes.

5 of our 46 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight calculated in early September 2020 that for Joe Biden to have just a 50-50 chance of becoming President, he needed to win the national popular vote by at least 3% (over 3 million votes).

A 1% lead in the national popular vote would have given Biden only a 6% chance of becoming President. A 2% lead would have given him only a 22% chance.

Another study showed, in general, there was a 45% chance that a close presidential election could end with the winner of less popular votes becoming President.

Another study warned that 1 out of every 3 presidential elections where the popular vote margin is within 3% will feature a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college.

There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It would have reduced turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter.

The system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation's 60 (8%) presidential elections.

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes.

Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.

Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.

A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million.

The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).

 

[Guillotine]

If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points).​

Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interview

“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”
Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”

“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”

“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

“I would rather have a popular vote. “

Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote.

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

BALANCE
Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

65,983,448 people live in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).

66,300,254 in rural America (20%)

Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population.

In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.

19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.

Balance??
Because of statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

2 recent presidents entered office without winning the most national popular votes.

5 of our 46 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight calculated in early September 2020 that for Joe Biden to have just a 50-50 chance of becoming President, he needed to win the national popular vote by at least 3% (over 3 million votes).

A 1% lead in the national popular vote would have given Biden only a 6% chance of becoming President. A 2% lead would have given him only a 22% chance.

Another study showed, in general, there was a 45% chance that a close presidential election could end with the winner of less popular votes becoming President.

Another study warned that 1 out of every 3 presidential elections where the popular vote margin is within 3% will feature a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college.

There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It would have reduced turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter.

The system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation's 60 (8%) presidential elections.

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes.

Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.

Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.

A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million.

The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).

Yappi should bill you for the bandwidth you're wasting, spammer.

Go away.

 

[Happier]

But Trump!!!!! says a person with TDS.

You make it seem like he is a non factor....

You will support him. GO MAGA

 

[y2h]

If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points).​

Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interview

“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”
Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”

“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”

“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

“I would rather have a popular vote. “

Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote.

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

BALANCE
Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

65,983,448 people live in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).

66,300,254 in rural America (20%)

Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population.

In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.

19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.

Balance??
Because of statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

2 recent presidents entered office without winning the most national popular votes.

5 of our 46 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight calculated in early September 2020 that for Joe Biden to have just a 50-50 chance of becoming President, he needed to win the national popular vote by at least 3% (over 3 million votes).

A 1% lead in the national popular vote would have given Biden only a 6% chance of becoming President. A 2% lead would have given him only a 22% chance.

Another study showed, in general, there was a 45% chance that a close presidential election could end with the winner of less popular votes becoming President.

Another study warned that 1 out of every 3 presidential elections where the popular vote margin is within 3% will feature a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college.

There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It would have reduced turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter.

The system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation's 60 (8%) presidential elections.

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes.

Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.

Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.

A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million.

The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).

And where do you think the advantage for Obama and Clinton came from...Cali and NY.

Thank God the rest of the country got to weigh in and elect the person who appealed to the will of the people.

 

[y2h]

You make it seem like he is a non factor....

You will support him. GO MAGA

Of course because he has solid policy. Unlike you I'm not following everything he says and does however.

 

[Happier]

Of course because he has solid policy. Unlike you I'm not following everything he says and does however.

Insurrections!!!!

 

[bob99]

Thank God the rest of the country got to weigh in and elect the person who appealed to the will of the people.

The will of the people? And what are the majority that voted if not people? Their will is not important?

 

[y2h]

The will of the people? And what are the majority that voted if not people? Their will is not important?

The will of the comprehensive totality of the country, not merely the most populous

 

[bob99]

The will of the comprehensive totality of the country, not merely the most populous

Wow! That is really deep.

 

[ottootto]

And where do you think the advantage for Obama and Clinton came from...Cali and NY.

Thank God the rest of the country got to weigh in and elect the person who appealed to the will of the people.

George W. Bush LOST California and New York in 2004 and still won the popular vote.

In 2020,

There were more Republican votes in CA than Texas.

There were 5.3 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states. More than the individual populations of 28 states!

None helped Trump in any way.

There were more Democratic votes in Texas than in NY.

None helped Biden in any way.

California and New York state had a total of 24,243,000 registered voters.
15% of the total number of registered voters in the US in 2018 (which is 153,066,000).

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.

1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

All voters in any state do not all vote for the same candidate.

Now, all electors of a state all vote for the statewide winner.

No losing party voters for president matter in any way in each state.

Alone, California and New York could not determine the presidency.

In total New York state and California (84 electors in total) cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20) (87 total) cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states.

All the voters – 66% -- in the 45 other states and DC would matter and count equally.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.

About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY Democrats would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be offset by NY and CA Republican votes.

The vote of every voter in the country (rural, urban, suburban) (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) in every state would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.

California and New York enacted the National Popular Vote bill with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate, matter and count equally.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served as a Republican in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

 

[cabezadecaballo]

State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.

The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply again changing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

Math and political reality.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.

All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.

Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,

CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

Even all the ballots rounded up by the ballot harvesting scams.

 

[ottootto]

Even all the ballots rounded up by the ballot harvesting scams.

There is no actual proof of widespread voter fraud in 2020 accepted by any court in the U.S. (with 234 judges nominated by Trump).

“There’s no there there.” - Meadows

There are conspiracy theories that hurt our system of government.

 

[Harrycrane]

Even all the ballots rounded up by the ballot harvesting scams.

Even when we lose ? We really won because you cheated . Pathetic

 

[Harrycrane]

There is no actual proof of widespread voter fraud in 2020 accepted by any court in the U.S. (with 234 judges nominated by Trump).

“There’s no there there.” - Meadows

There are conspiracy theories that hurt our system of government.

They make guys like Cabe feel better though .

 

[Guillotine]

There is no actual proof of widespread voter fraud in 2020 accepted by any court in the U.S. (with 234 judges nominated by Trump).

No one here is claiming fraud, spammer.

Ballot harvesting was made legal (unconstitutionally) and just one of the many facets of the rigging of the 2020 election.

Please make a note of this.